Email Post to a Friend: ahavafriend

The information you provide on this form will not be used for anything other than sending the email to your friend. This feature is not to be used for advertising or excessive self-promotion.

Your Name

Required

Your Email Address

Required

Friend's Email Address

Enter a comma separated list of up to 10 email addresses.

Required

Remember Me Saves your name and e-mail address on this computer

Message

Maximum 300 characters

Journalistic Honesty & Legislative Integrity

I just about came unglued when I read the statement "The idea - to subject all Californians who collect welfare payments to random drug testing - is the brainchild of a 16-year-old with cerebral palsy." Serious!? No one has ever thought of this before? A teenager with severe disabilities is the first person in the universe ("brainchild" would indicate this person is the father of the idea), to think about this. Come on!

Well, the article goes on to explain that a 1996 Welfare Reform Act actually authorizes this in California and that Michigan became the first state to start random drug testing for welfare recipients in 2000. So how is this idea the brainchild of this kid? It's either sloppy journalism or sensationalism to get you to read the article, the best that I can figure.

The back story is that this kid won a contest to enact a law sponsored by a CA state legislator. The "sell" is that this kid "makes such a compelling argument that it will be difficult to say 'no' (to him)," explains the legislator. Apparently this kid's mother was on welfare and doing drugs when she became pregnant with him, causing the cerebral palsy and his life of difficulty. The legislator explains that he "'can't run and play' like other children because 'his mother chose to use drugs.'"

How sad that an adult, and a CA Legislator, is using this kid as a ploy for this effort.
First, Michigan's law and other states' laws have all been challenged by the ACLU, and no state currently is practicing this, including CA, in spite of the 1996 Act (as the article points out). Second, a mother using drugs when she is pregnant is already against the law, and many children are actually removed from a mother's care and adopted out when this happens (as was the case with this kid). Third, as has been discussed on this blog before, and quoting Dennis Prager, "Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves." The fact that it would be hard to say no to this kid, makes this horribly manipulative and, as Prager explains, makes me wonder what this law maker is thinking.